thePeerage.com

[marksl]

Hi

I am hoping that someone out there in cyberspace may be able to point me in the right direction.

Despite many years of research into my family's history, I have long faced an insurmountable wall five generations back, my London-born paternal great-great-grandfather, and have not been able to establish his lineage.

As far as the record speaks, he was born in c.1824 but I have not been able to find a record of birth or baptism. His name is recorded as John 'Conley' in an Old Bailey transcript in 1839 and as John 'Connelly' on the 1841 census. His occupation on the 1839 document was given as that most odorous of professions, 'chimney sweep'. He was domiciled with his 'master', one William Andrews, a chimney sweep, in Orchard Street, Westminster, coincidentally or not, a few blocks away from a well-known palace. Chimney sweeps constantly sought young boys to 'apprentice' as 'climbing boys' to sweep the chimneys of wealthy homes.

I have recently taken the DNA route and it is throwing up some intriguing results - chiefly, that my paternal line carries several aristocratic/royal bloodlines, albeit somewhat distant. Aristocratic/royal bloodlines and the profession of chimney sweeping do not seem to be entirely consistent with each other and I am seeking an explanation.

I gather there were quite distinct 'levels' of illegitimacy. For example, it seems that an infant born of an 'upstairs' unmarried couple retained some status within the social hierarchy, even though illegitimate (eg King George IV's illegitimate family). However, a child born of a couple, one 'upstairs' and the other 'downstairs', was a different matter and it may have been prudent to offload/discard the unwanted progeny discreetly and anonymously.

My tentative suppositions are that John Conley/Connelly was (a) the illegitimate and unwanted offspring of some (as yet) unknown 'upstairs' blue-blood and a 'downstairs' Irish servant girl, presumably of the name Conley or Connelly, and (b) given his mother's presumed surname to conceal his paternal identity and (c) disposed to a chimney sweep.

My questions are (as best I can frame them):

(1) what social protocols surrounded illegitimacy in UK aristocratic households in the 1820s? Have these been documented in any way, eg in book or article?

(2) Did an 'upstairs' parent carry any continuing obligations for his (or her) offloaded, illegitimate progeny's welfare, education etc? Or was it a matter of out-of-sight and therefore out-of-mind?

In my sincere pursuit of the truth, I would welcome any advice or suggestions that anyone out there may have.

Thanks!

Dr Mark St Leon
Sydney, Australia
_________________
Mark St Leon, PhD
Sydney NSW 2222
Australia

[col48]

Not really advice, just a few thoughts...

The 1841 Census entry is very clear. William Andrews is the Chimney Sweep (and householder), John Connally [sic] is an Apprentice. But it does not say in what trade he is an apprentice. One of the other Andrews is a Cabinet Maker, for instance. JC was born in Middlesex. Bear in mind there may well be noone literate in the house, so the written entry represents what the Census Enumerator heard - the spelling is therefore unreliable. It is also possible that John did not know (or could not calculate accurately) his age, which would also merely be what Mr Andrews told the Enumerator.

Have you identified him in the 1851 Census? By the age of 27, he would have his trade. In that Census there's more than one JC born Middlesex around 1824, but none of them is sweeping chimneys! If you're lucky, he will have a parent dependant on him in one of the later Censuses and it will tell you that parent's birthplace.

On the social aspects of illegitimacy, I don't think there were any obligations other than moral ones unless the man acknowledged them. A relationship between a high-born woman and a low-born man would be much rarer than one where the statuses were reversed. Before the late 19th Century (in England), a woman who did not have her own wealth - and there were not many of those - would have to find some means of support from a man. A widow might continue to farm her late husband's land, and some might take in washing. But I think the general attitude was that a respectable woman's place was in her parents' home until marriage and her husband's home afterwards.

A man might take a mistress (or more than one) but there would be no binding obligation to support her after the relationship ended or to support any children which resulted. Having said that, I think many men did make some provision if he could, or even bring the children into his household. How many 1st Earls or 1st Dukes on this database are the illegitimate son of a King? But it was always the man whose decision mattered.

Among the 'lower' classes, marriage often simply meant the couple wanted a respectable relationship. The whole range of reasons for marriage (financial stability, child on the way, leaving the parental home, want to be provided for or cooked for, even love!) could probably be found if we were able to ask them.

Your surmise about John's illegitimacy is not necessarily about the man himself; it may be two or more generations earlier. In the absence of an acknowledged father, the mother's surname is the only option. If a high-born man accepted paternity, he would have made some respectable provision, for instance (for a boy) buying a military commission or (for a girl) finding a husband, each of which would have the convenience of distancing the offspring from himself.

Documentation? I don't know, but perhaps Jane Austen, William Thackery and other authors of the period reflect real life? Charles Dickens is a bit later when women in business and the existence of a Middle Class were more evident.